I have two Colt .45s; a 1991A1 that I bought when they first came out, and a Government Model 1911 with a civilian serial number made in 1917. Haven’t gotten round to firing the old one yet.
I bought it a few years ago. I don’t remember how much it cost, but over $1,000. It’s been refinished, so it’s a shooter – though as I said, I haven’t yet. I bought original-style diamond stocks for it, so it looks very nice.
It’s been a bone of contention since they were replaced 27 years ago. Even after they were replaced the spec-ops community still used .45s, and if it’s good enough for them it ought to be good enough for the rest of us common military folk.
I suppose we could have switched to some other .45 if cocked-and-locked carry was an issue, and while .45 is heavy nobody carries a ton of handgun ammunition anyway so that’s moot. Magazine capacity? Maybe, but it’s not like it’s hard to reload, and my predecessors made due with the 1911 for the better part of a century. It seems that they went to 9mm for no particularly good reason, unless it was some NATO standardization issue.
Maybe we’ll one day get rid of the M9. I hope so, it’s a heavy kludge. I’d rather carry a 1911 or a Glock in .45 with a few extra magazines.
In boot camp our gunnery instructor pointed out the necessity of closing with the enemy before trying to shoot him with the forty-five. He said the weapon would be much deadlier if it had a place on it to affix a bayonet.
Rock Island Armory has a 1911 for about $400-$500. This guy likes his, and there are other reviews on the web (which I haven’t read). It looks similar to my Colt 1991A1, which I bought because it was ‘bare bones’. As a rule, I do not prefer clones. Not that there’s anything wrong with them (Taurus has been mentioned), but because I like to have The Name. I’m more of a collector (or ‘amasser’, rather) than a shooter. That’s why I chose an Italian-made Beretta instead of the U.S.-made one. So a Kimber might be a better gun, and a Taurus (in the case of a Beretta 92) might be a better value; but I want a Colt, if you follow.
I’ve owned, shot and enjoyed Colt 45’s but I have to say that this particular gun selection has the appearance of being flawed. I hope they did not make a big mistake for the sake of nostalgia or to make some lobbyist rich.
Testing after the trials showed that the winning Colts had numerous frame cracks afterwards. http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/20/marsoc-winning-colt-guns/
And still the Marines picked the Colt. You’d think they’d ask a question or two about those cracks, but no…
He has a point. A race gun has no place on a battlefield. But for the purposes of this thread, having used a handgun in a battle situation is not important. The closest would be self-defense or stopping a bad guy, and those are rare occurrences.
Yeah, I’ve heard good things about those. I’d almost want one, although I keep telling myself that would mean I’d have to start buying .45, so I resist for now.
I don’t want to gainsay a drill instructor, but my father in law can put 2 bullets through the same hole at 75 feet with his 1911. I’ve seen him do it.
Marines just ordered $22.5 million of Colt .45 M1911. The iconic military handgun that was carried in both World Wars, Korea, and Viet Nam.
